Why It’s Good To Shame Single Moms

With all the data pointing to an entrenchment of epidemic-like proportions of single momhood in the U.S., it’s helpful to remind ourselves why this is so bad not only for the health of the nation and its posterity, but for the well-being of the children who suffer under a regime of single moms. As we are neck-deep in an era of selfishness, it’s no surprise that the scourge of single momhood leads the vanguard of cultural dissolution. At 70+% among black Americans, 50+% among Hispanics, and 30% among whites, we are heading for a future of grown-up bastard spawn bringing all their neuroses and dysfunction to bear on the social contract, which is already frayed beyond rescue.

Of course, middle-upper and upper class whites think they are immune to the tidal wave of illegitimacy, and so far they can take cold comfort in the fact that their rates are considerably lower than those of their lessers (you’ll never get them to admit they have lessers, but you can bet your bottom dollar that they *believe exactly that*.) However, strong social forces can work both up and down the class and race ladder, and it is entirely plausible that a dystopian event horizon, like widespread illegitimacy, that bellies up the lower and middle classes will eventually consume the upper classes as well, either directly by the osmosis of bad habits or indirectly by the levying of trust-destroying and community-fracturing Danegeld.

One of those helpful reminders of the shitty hand that single momhood deals to their innocent bastards comes to us in an Australian study of boys raised without a father.

Adolescent boys are more prone to delinquency if they do not have a father figure in their lives, a University of Melbourne study has found, while adolescent girls seem unaffected by the presence or absence of fathers in their lives.

The study, undertaken by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the Faculty of Business and Economics, found that the presence of a father figure during adolescence was most likely to have a preventive effect on whether male youths engage in risk-taking and deviant behaviour.

While active involvement and interaction between fathers and youths was found to be beneficial, it did not explain the positive benefits of children who grow up with fathers in the household.

“The sense of security generated by the presence of a male role model in a youth’s life has protective effects for a child, regardless of the degree of interaction between the child and father,” Professor Deborah Cobb-Clark, Director of the Melbourne Institute said.

“Fathers provide children with male role models and can influence children’s preferences, values and attitudes, while giving them a sense of security and boosting their self-esteem. They also increase the degree of adult supervision at home, which may lead to a direct reduction of delinquent behaviour.” […]

“Our study included residential and non-residential, biological fathers and residential stepfathers and their influence on adolescent behaviours,” Professor Cobb-Clark said.

“We find that adolescent boys engage in more delinquency without a father figure in their lives. Adolescent girls‟ behaviours are less closely linked to this, which may be attributed to the inherent levels of risk-taking that vary between males and females.”

Additionally, higher family incomes were found to have little effects on solving the problems associated with youth delinquency.

Boys of single moms are more likely to end up huffing paint under overpasses. Way to go, single moms.

Interestingly, the study claims girls do not suffer as much from missing fathers, but the metric used in the study was degree of delinquency, which would naturally favor girls since they are the sex less predisposed to criminal behavior, regardless of parental environment. Studies that have expanded the measured variables to include other dysfunctional behaviors find clear links between fatherlessness and sluttiness in teen girls. Mothers nurture, fathers guide. Both are required to fully form the child into a self-possessed adult.

The Chateau has often asserted that both the carrot and the stick are necessary to influence human behavior, given innate genetic constraints. Shame is a powerful motivator of behavior, and a concerted effort by the wider culture and all its propaganda organs to shame single moms and women at risk for single mommery into avoiding the degenerate life of the single mom with bastard sprog in tow will redound to the benefit of not just individual women and children, but to society as a whole. This campaign of shame should include in its sights those desperate beta and omega males who willingly date and shack up with single moms and by doing so breathe sustaining gusts of validity into a depraved lifestyle that would otherwise fail in a state of nature where men had more choice and exercised more care in their choosing of partners.

(People who scoff at the Chateau recommendation that game will help society right itself in the long run need look no further than the benefits that can accrue to everyone when beta males have more sexual freedom to shun the dregs of womanhood and heed their true desires more faithfully.)

Unsurprisingly, the avatars of noblesse oblige are inculcating the opposite message — a message of destruction, decay and death. Smart but stupid: I can’t think of a more fitting motto for our current elite.

Like this:

Related

322 Responses

I believe it was a blogger who went by the name of who penned the classic line, “Dads who vamoose make girls who are loose.”

Only in our fucked up zeitgeist would the idea that kids need both parents require validation from various studies and data sets. Can’t science y take time to prove something else, like that humans really need oxygen?

That rhyming phrase is catchy, but it also reflects the conventional, but wrong, “wisdom” that the primary responsibility for single motherhood is bio dads. It’s not. It’s the single mothers.

Nearly always the bio dad didn’t want to be one, at least if he’s a white guy. All but one of the 8 or so reversible methods of birth control are under the sole knowledge and control of the female. The one that isn’t greatly reduces sexual pleasure especially for the male but for both. So most couples that have become that, a relationship, don’t like to use condoms.

I think most unplanned (by the guy) pregnancies aren’t actually accidents but are instead “oopses” wanted consciously or subconsciously by the girl. You notice damn few elite college girls get pregnant while still students. As well when the social shaming for being an unwed bother and having a bastard were still very very large in 1960, when abortion was illegal and there was really only one reversible form of birth control, and when it was much harder to prove paternity, and when child support=now also stealth alimony was much lower, damn few white women did have children out of wedlock, only about 3%, vs. 28% in the 2010 census. I.e. when women really, really didn’t want to have kids outside of marriage because the social and economic costs were so high, the didn’t very much at all. These days feminists joined by other lefties have made those costs MUCH lower to woman who have the same bio urges as in 1960.

These days maybe she thinks/hopes consciously or subconsciously she can get the guy to commit and marry her finally if she’s carrying his child, so she starts “forgetting” to take her bc pill for bunches of days, not all of them, but enough of them. Maybe she’s impulsive and just primally wants a child, and knows anyway she’ll get praised by many for being brave, and there’s that sizeable child support if the guy she’s with is a big earner – even if he won’t “do the right thing” and marry her. Or maybe she’s getting older and doesn’t want to be a childless aging woman.

It’s not my rhyme, I just quoted it. In any case, I wasn’t suggesting men need to man up or any other SoCon bailout, only that girls seeking to find a long lost daddy, regardless of how they ended up without one, tend to use their vaginas as the search party.

Wow I did not read all the responses to this but I hope someone else saw the fallacy in this. Just for the record, Barack Obama was brought up by a single mom and Dr. Carson, one of the greatest neurosurgeons in the world. Both are black and did not turn out to be degenerates because of their circumstances. While I agree that singleness should not be permitted in the manner it is to “shame single moms” as a headline screams of the skewed perception that fathers are not a BIG part of the problem. Maybe just maybe if men were not so determined to use all the game techniques suggested in this website, women would not end up pregnant without being married. SINGLE PREGNANCY IS NOT A WOMAN’s FAULT, MEN HAVE ALLLLOT to contribute to it. I think is we need science not to prove anything, this is an established fact even by the most primitive jungle people. REAL MEN would take accountability.

“SING LE PREGNANCY IS NOT A WOMAN’s FAULT, MEN HAVE ALLLLOT to contribute to it. I think is we need science not to prove anything, this is an established fact even by the most primitive jungle people. REAL MEN would take accountability.”

Well, each case is different. But it takes two to make a baby. Allocating
guilt to men vs. women is a difficult task, but the “default” assumption
should be a 50/50 split of responsibility. Anything else requires proof
or at least some kind of argument.

The “traditional” view is of the fickle boyfriend who vamooses when
he finds that his gf is pregnant. A hundred years ago, this was the
norm for single-never-married mothers. And I have no reason
to believe that such cases have ceased to exist.

However, this is not likely the typical scenario today. Au contraire,
there are a number of other scenarios, such as

o The parents stay in touch, maybe live together, or in vicinity of
each other, and share some of the responsibilities. These are
“single mothers” only by statistical definition, since the kid(s)
see their father frequently, even daily.

o Woman gets pregnant but does not want much involvement from
the man.

o Woman gets pregnant but does not want much involvement
from the man – except child support.

o The act was a one-night-stand and the man is not even informed
that he has fathered a baby.

o The parents are married or in an LTR when the baby is conceived,
but the mother throws out the father (including if they are married)
at some time before the kids are grown. Surprisingly common.

o As above except it is the father who splits. This is the classical
case, and is still going but is not nearly as common as people
believe it is, and much less common than the reverse, see the
preceding point.

This is the first blog post I totally disagree with. The fact is nobody knows the personal history involved when a single woman winds up alone. It could be abusive violence, mental illness, drugs, military death, cheating spouse etc.. of the boyfriend/father that lead to the situation. If you don’t know the facts yet judge someone based on some vague generalizing notion from statistics rather than your core instincts, then that is completely anti-alpha male behaviour.

While those categories exist you left out the highest and most prevalent category…women who make poor choices and scam the system (including role model fathers) for cash & prizes. This is what these juvenile boys see…a scam artist parent mother sticking it to the non-custodial father and in turn they think “f-that” I’ll just jag off …no sense being a good beta cause that’s what the system punishes the most.

“The fact is nobody knows the personal history involved when a single woman winds up alone. It could be abusive violence, mental illness, drugs, military death, cheating spouse etc.. of the boyfriend/father that lead to the situation.”

True, but most single moms aren’t single moms because their husbands died in war. They’re single moms because they were never married to begin with.

The reasons they were never married, inability to achieve commitment from their child(ren)’s fathers which basically means one or more of the following:
(1) They slept with too many men, too quickly.
(2) Never saw any or enough signs of desire for family life.
(3) Never saw that person interact with his own family and friends PRIOR to sleeping with him. (oh darn, that would eliminate ONS. How inconvenient.)

I think #3 is an often overlooked point on this blog. (Glossing over the fact that many women marry (and even date) within certain geographic restrictions.) You’re certainly not marrying a guy’s family, but how that person interacts with his family is extremely valuable info to know. And something that many single moms don’t have the foresight to explore early enough.

The problem with many single moms and single parents is their attempts at turning their own lack of access to childcare into everyone else’s problem. Of course, that’s not even touching on all the other squandered $$$ via WIC, free healthcare, etc. They’re givers and taxers, and single moms are usually TAKERS. Sure, there are a few exceptions, but not that many.

The fact is nobody knows the personal history involved when a single woman winds up alone. It could be abusive violence, mental illness, drugs, military death, cheating spouse etc.. of the boyfriend/father that lead to the situation. If you don’t know the facts yet judge someone based on some vague generalizing notion from statistics rather than your core instincts, then that is completely anti-alpha male behaviour.

What utter horseshiite.

Yeah right, all of that women pittying feminist vastly exaggerated crap. Yeah sure those things increased just VASTLY from 1960, instead of decreasing vastly in frequency which is what the evidence suggests.

Out of wedlock child births among white women went from 3% in 1960 to 28% in 2010.

1, No sex until marriage.
2. No marriage to anyone not thoroughly vetted by dad, and ideally grandpa, uncles and brothers.
3. No marriage until beau has demonstrated a decent record of financial self sufficiency.

And see how many end up as single moms.

It’s not like any of the above requires a Nobel grade intellect or some sort of Godlike powers of foresight. After all, it’s basically the formula followed by women for millennia, with (by today’s standard) quite outstanding results as far as rates of single motherhood is concerned.

Dude…Look, there are exceptions to every rule. There are those bizarre circumstances where she decided to keep the baby and thought he was going to stick around and then at the last minute the bio dad bolts… But you obviously have not spent time hanging around single moms. Find some. They hang out together often, so you will see the mentality on full display. This mentality has absolutely no sense of responsibility or self-accountability, believes that money and gov’t entitlements grow on trees, and that nobody should judge them because “families come in all shapes and sizes.”

This post is obviously speaking to the broad societal trend, and not each and every case. If you can’t set aside your “every case is different” objection, then you can’t really discuss any broad social phenomenon of any kind . Believe me, CH is completely on point on this issue. I’ve seen this up close.

Pretty much every single guy I know that’s my age was a loving husband, and father, hard worker and good provider, few if any vices, whose wife dumped him because she was “bored” or “unhappy” or “didn’t feel loved anymore.” And pretty much every single mom I know that’s my age dumped a perfectly fine guy thinking that the grass was greener on the other side. Oh, yes, they deny it up one side and down the other (vague accusations of “addiction” come thick and fast) but it just ain’t so.

The most fun I have at singles events now is to sit across from an interested mom and ask “where’s Dad?” They think they’re going to get the same sort of validation that their girlfriends provide but instead get to squirm under the brutal interrogation of a guy who’s been there and done that. And it usually ends with me asking “Why the hell would I want to date you?” and them crying. Good times. But then they won’t stop calling.

Thank you for you white knighting. I can not believe just how many men believe they have no responsibility for the epidemic of women that are out there. I know personally of a “guy with tight game” who used this game on a 22 year old virgin to get what he wanted and then never used a condom and got her pregnant!!! Hallo, which part of this makes him alpha and her trash? Or of a 21 year old who got a 13 year old girlfriend pregnant? There is not such thing as lets shame women and forget men. I come from a culture where the statistics of single moms are extremely low. By no means whatsoever do they allow men off the hook though. Men are required to keep their equipment intact until marriage. Now that would truly solve the epidemic. Maybe just maybe men should learn to understand this. I especially hate the idea that the men goal is to create more “good variety for men”. Ha someone figure it out when you sleep with a 22 or 13 year old virgin with no intention of marrying them then all your doing is ruining it for some other alpha male. Keep your stuff to yourself, its the only real solution, and if they get pregnant take responsibility marry the bitch and bring up children who will also understand the concept of sex results in babies!!!!

IMHO entirely different animal. They are doing something they shouldn’t have to do, as it is primarely a woman’s job to take care of the day-to-day stuff for the kids. Punishment via shame wouldn’t be what I would recommend here.

Obviously we don’t want either scenario playing out large-scale but chances are the single dad scenarios are usually betas getting stuck so game + better laws would be the remedy here.

If the man is saavy enough to have gotten the children in a day and age stacked against him what makes you think he’d respond to the shame? Exactly who would be able to shame a man winning against those odds?

I’d commend him if he’s sticking his ex with child support. The AG in Texas doesn’t give a fuck about the deadbeat parent’s gender. If you’re behind on child support they’ll jail a deadbeat mom just as fast as a dad.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think the post is referring to divorced parents. And that would almost have to be the situation for a man to have custody of his kids. Very very rare for a bio dad to get custody in a paternity action. I think the post is referring to women who never secure a commitment from the bio dad to begin with, and still choose to have the baby. Some divorced women are just as flaky, self-centered, slutty and impulsive as single moms (my ex-wife), and many of the same rules would apply, but I would view a divorced woman with kids much differently than a single mom. I would be on high alert for single-mom tendencies, but there are a lot of women out there that wanted their marriages and families to work and they got left by an irresponsible man. I wouldn’t venture a guess as to the percentage of divorced women that fall into either category.

I am a divorced man with 2 kids. My brief experience so far has indicated that some women will as a rule swear you off if you have kids. However, for those that are open to it, a man who is good with their kids is a big turn on for those women. I had a very attractive friend of mine tell me that as far as divorced men go, she is skeptical of men who only have their kids every other weekend. But if the guy has his kids half the time or more, that’s like a judicial stamp of approval as a good father.

I’ve often thought that this is “provider appeal” and maybe not the type of attraction you want to foster in a woman, but i think a critical distinction is that it is demonstrating an ability to provide that is not directed towards the woman. A committed father inherently demonstrates a maturity and non-neediness towards a woman…her approval becomes secondary when you have little people that you are responsible for. Again, some women just will not consider dating a man with kids. However, I think having kids can highlight your alpha appeal for those women that will consider it. At least that’s what I tell myself…

If you have actual physical custody of your kids half the time do you have to pay child support=also stealth alimony in your state?

It seems incredibly unjust for such men to have to do so to me, but feminists have managed to get that in some/many places I understand. Yeah there’s some reduction in child support=also stealth alimony in those states for more dad time, but not all that much in many places apparently.

Doug1 – yeah, it is in the 50/50 cases where the real battles are waged. I live in what is considered a very progressive jurisdiction, so the rule here probably doesn’t apply everywhere, but in my jurisdiction, 50/50 custody is almost a default rule where both parents genuinely want the children. Absent criminal conduct or serious misconduct, a father that wants his kids half the time gets them here. Then the issue becomes: who is designated the “paying” parent for purposes of child support, and who is the “receiving” parent. In my jurisdiction, the courts have taken a position that the parent with higher income should be the paying parent by default, absent peculiar circumstances.

This may seem equitable, however, the paying parent is not given the full 50% discount. Instead, the paying parent may be given only up to a 34% discount, based on the theory that there are some non-duplicated expenses that one parent usually ends up getting stuck with (clothing, lunch money, monthly fees and costs). So the current legal controversy here is that courts are designated the “paying” parent for reasons completely separate from the justificiation for limiting the paying parent deduction – courts here are making the parent with the higher income pay (almost always the man), even if he is the one providing these non-duplicated expenses to the children.

Usually, the key is inome. If the parents have roughly the same
income, then no child support. But if one parent (read the man
95% of the time) makes significantly more, he may get stuck
with child support.

No true. There is child support=also stealth alimony even if the ex wife makes more money if she has custody and he just have visitation rights. In fact in most states her income isn’t even taken into account at all. Well they usually pretend it is taken into account, but it’s in both the numerator and denominator of equations they use so it’s cancelled out and really isn’t.

If they make the same amount of money and he pays her tax free to her child support of about 28% of his before tax income for two kids she will have WAY more after tax after support disposable income than the ex husband will.

If I’m successful here in Ontario getting my kids 50% of the time, the system lets me pay 100% of the monthly child support. For 50% of the time, I get to pay 100% of the monthly child cost to my former wife. The Family Law socialists don’t care what her income is; just mine. Stealth alimony indeed.

This late in the game, the only way to shake the parasite is to nuke my own income.

Hah! I am quite familiar with a young man who is a single father.
(No, not me.). His gf,i.e. the mother managed to piss off the court
by not honoring visitatation rights etc. during the litigatiion.
Finally the mother in effect was given the choice of
a) folding, giving the father primary custody OR
b) pressing her case, but then also fighting a dozen or
so contempt charges, possibly carrying jail sentences.

da reason dat the federal resevevr fed eral reseevr funds dfifnances teh breakup of the family is that dat they want the FATHER out of the house so that the beernkifiiers a can claim and educate the childrven through the corproate bernankeifed corprate state zlozlzozozzzozozoozoz

1) exile the father form the home lzozozlzo
2) get the state involved in raising the chidkdidren
3) get rid of god religion in the home zlozlzlzozozo
4) raise fucked up kis which grow the neoconths state lzozlzlzozo
5) dumb down d apapuoltaionss with more fmeinsistsmsmss killing teh unborn transferrring welath from hardworking men to da neoeocnconcing neoeocnsnsinsiss lzozozlzl

dis is why neococnth jonah goldbeegr is for more fmeinsissmms and more war as both empower him by deteroysinsg lieverss fmailies men and enelarging da fiat benrnkifified neoeocn tstatet zllzozlzlz

On Loveline, Adam Carolla would always ask these idiotic single mothers if it was a boy or a girl. He always prayed that it was a girl; better a future stripper than a future gangster. He’d tell her to catapult the kid in the direction of the nearest nice suburb.

The Aceman, at least back in the day, was one of the most keen, un-PC figures in entertainment.

Aren’t the songs of single-moms MORE likely to be fed a constant stream of bullshit meant to delude or obscure a woman’s failings, thus promoting delusional, beta behavior in said offspring, without a father’s moderating touch?

On average, more alpha than children from stable homes. Chest thumping cavemen always act more alpha than civilized people. Which is why civilization built rules delaying mating, until more traits than simple chest thumping abilities could be discovered.

Alphas don’t have to be virtuous men, sometimes they are in fact losers; the ‘chicks dig jerks’ series on this site featured criminals. But sometimes they are not. The title isn’t implicit of some unified morality that alphas share, but more so a description which encompasses a certain of set of personality traits which “alphas” share to varying degrees. Some to a degree that is detrimental.

There are points in the alphaness test for physical altercations and jail time. Exactly where does self control seem necessary for alpha? Some of the most destructive men of all time were clearly alpha (think Rock Stars, Steve Mcqueen etc etc..)

Per the definition chosen by this blog, ones degree of alphaness depend solely on the number and looks driven quality of women one beds. Which, in our post civilized dystopia, correlates very strongly with the kind of behaviors children of single mothers are prone to display; aggression, self aggrandizement, narcissism and general assholish behavior.

You seem to be making the common mistake of not differentiating between the above definition of alphaness, and the more commonly applied zoological one, where the alpha is the battle tested flock leader.

In the latter, zoological, case, being “truly alpha”, means one is an asset to the flock, i.e. one gives more than one takes away. In the game case, the whole purpose is to take as much as one can, while giving as little as possible back. In other words, the goal is being maximally parasitic. Since, after all, chicks dig jerks, and giving anyone anything makes one less of a jerk, hence less alpha, and more beta.

sons of single moms only become alpha if theyre smart enough to realize they need to tune out whatever nonsense their mothers tell them about how to treat women and emulate the alphas who regularly pump and dump their moms. this does happen, but its uncommon. most of these boys end up swallowing the bs and put women on pedestals, forever dooming themselves to betadom.

Agreed with the caveat that we need to bring back precision in our naming. “Widow”, no stigma. It makes me bone-deep-weep when i hear widows being described as “single mothers”.
I’m not saying I’d go out with one, but widow is clearly a different category of SM than “eat pray love”

Everybody understands that widowhood is a special case,
which carries compassion not criticism to the widow
(unless she offed her husband, or harassed him to death).

This can be found many places, including in this blog.

I dated a woman for a while who was first widowed (with a
baby in utero)., then married somebody on the rebound and
divorced a year or so later. I told her to NEVER present herself
as a divorced woman, but as a widow (hell, they were both true),
as it carries much higher status. The then in utero daughter is
now in medical school, time flies.

While the thought of a nation full of single moms instinctively makes me taste bile, these kinds of studies don’t control for genes. Children of single mothers inherit their fathers’ low conscientiousness as well as their mothers’ impulsivity, although this (conscientiousness, impulsivity) will be partially captured by adjusting for income and education.

Yep but in order for these single kids to have fathers doesn’t it take a beta herb provider to be there and take responsability?
Or, stone the crows, can you actually be a Dad and still be Alpha? – answer: Of course you can.

“… we are heading for a future of grown-up bastard spawn bringing all their neuroses and dysfunction to bear on the social contract …”

LOL, this is me. I keep blaming my father for leaving me. I’ll probably forgive him when he explains me why he did that. But he doesn’t want to say anything about that no matter how many times I asked him already.

“Shame is a powerful motivator of behavior, and a concerted effort by the wider culture and all its propaganda organs to shame single moms and women at risk for single mommery into avoiding the degenerate life of the single mom with bastard sprog in tow will redound to the benefit of not just individual women and children, but to society as a whole.”

I don’t agree with this strategy. Shame is very painful and some people are very prone to be ashamed of themselves (me, for example) and this can destroy their lives. I think shaming is a very old-fashioned and repulsive method to control people’s behaviour. Laws are much better. Single moms shouldn’t get any money from the government and family laws should be very conservative.

Shaming really is not a good idea. I remind my single mom about her status from time to time but it just makes her feel sad and ashamed. She usually doesn’t say much about her failure but at least she supports me in my efforts to get married and not end up like she did. She’s not a typical single mom, not a feminist, not a slut, not a cougar. I feel guilty when I shame her.

“LOL, this is me. I keep blaming my father for leaving me. I’ll probably forgive him when he explains me why he did that. But he doesn’t want to say anything about that no matter how many times I asked him already.”

Why on Earth would you need or even want to know this? And even if you were provided an explanation, do you expect it to be sincere and genuine? (the best recommendation is- GET OVER IT) You’d be better off asking your mother why she made the choices she did. But since you’re reading here, you’d be wasting your breath since you already know the answer to that. So, internalize those mistakes, and don’t make the same mistakes yourself. Unless, of course, torturing yourself and setting yourself up for misery is your idea of fun.

And Maya has mentioned asking her dad numerous times for an answer, which he won’t provide. What’s the magic number of times she should ask until she gets an answer? 5? 10? 20? 50? 100? Something tells me even if her father were in her life, she’d find something else to complain about.

“Something tells me even if her father were in her life, she’d find something else to complain about.”

LOL, definitely!

I’m obsessing about this issue here because you guys also seem to be okay with abandoning unwanted children … I just wanted to say that from my experience this feels really bad … for a child. So you shouldn’t do that.

It becomes an empty void in people’s self identity. Men experience this too, even worse, I believe. Perhaps Maya obsesses on this issue because it is a constant void in her life. Being abandoned by one’s father is a psychological stamp of disapproval by the archsymbol for social approval, one’s father. It causes damage to one’s self perception, whether its deserved or not.

Single moms shouldn’t get any state compelled child support=also stealth alimony he doesn’t want to contribute either, unless he agreed with the mom to have the kid and agreed to pay it to induce her to.

“… unless he agreed with the mom to have the kid and agreed to pay it to induce her to.”

I’d change this part, though. Any man who sleeps with a woman should not be too surprised if she gets pregnant. I’m not trolling and I seriously mean it.
I don’t agree with the idea that it’s all woman’s fault – men should behave responsibly as well.

If I could get a readily and reliably reversible vasectomy I would, and they’re expensive. Women have all but one of the reversible forms of birth control under their sole knowledge and control, and the one that’s joint greatly reduces sexual pleasure especially but not only for the man. So when in relationships most couples like to use and another method – which is to say one she and she alone is responsible for.

As well if I had drunken unprotected sex I’d get and use plan B for sure if I was a woman and able to have it prevent pregnancy. Failing that working I’d abort a kid I didn’t want, but I can do that, or at least give to for adoption to a family that wants kids but can’t have them, but I can’t do that either.

Further I think the great, great majority of “accidental” pregnancies are really on purpose, consciously or subsconsciously. She get’s careless about taking her bc pills, but doesn’t tell him that. And so on.

idk. Most women will want to get pregnant … and especially after 30 or 35 if they are childless. Is this so difficult to understand?
It’s risky to sleep with a childless woman over 30 just as it’s risky to walk outside alone half-naked during the night … evolutionary pressures.

Just don’t give your sperm to a woman if you don’t want to have babies.

Yes a man shouldn’t be able to force a woman to have an abortion. But he should be able to abort all parental responsibilities (and privileges) for the kid he didn’t want to have but she did, by notifying her of this decision in time for her to have a legal abortion if she wishes.

Birth control if very effective if conscientiously taken (well some types don’t require much conscientiousness once in place like inplanon or various types of IUDs). If a girls says she’s on a specific type of birth control a guy has the expectation that sex won’t lead to pregnancy. He isn’t giving her permission to dupe him by lying just because he has sex with her w/out a condom, believing she’s otherwise protected.

I agree with you, men shouldn’t be forced to spend any money or time on unwanted children (although it’s not a nice feeling when you know that one parent doesn’t give a shit about you).

About birth control … I said it before, but once again – most 30-35 y.o. women want to catch the last train and have a baby when they still can. It’s actually very smart to stop taking the pill and get pregnant asap.

Look, if a woman offers her vagina and womb, it is the mans to do with as he pleases. She has NO say as to whether the baby is carried to term or not. Only a man can have say in what happens with his sperm.

Maya, agree with me or openly admit that don’t give a rats @@$ about equal rights, only female privilege.

If a man sleeps with a woman, and she pinholes the condom and gets pregnant, he has a right to be surprised. The man should have chosen to have a baby

Women are pretty good at not getting pregnant when they don’t want to. And great at getting pregnant when they want to. Men have little control over it. Women shouldn’t be rewarded for deceiving men. Deception isn’t a productive goal for society, but we funnel shitloads of money to women who are good at it.

Absolutely!
Revealing these hard truths about woman isn’t the same as mysogany.
Sex is the means for procreation as it appears there are so many contraceptives in place today, that having sex without it almost guarantee’s parenthood. But, having sex and stating I’m not looking to become a parent is a contradiction in and of itself.
This post is dynamite and accurately describes the current state of affairs and set’s the stage of what we should expect in the future.
Men, unless you have children from a previous relationship, DO NOT get involved with a woman who have critters. Don’t rationalize what makes her special. There are plenty of single, childless woman out there. The rise of shared family households with stepchildren is so pervasive, there is no need, rhyme, or reason for a single man to embark on this journey.

But he doesn’t want to say anything about that no matter how many times I asked him already.
…
She usually doesn’t say much about her failure

here are the two most likely scenarios:

– (if your mom and dad were not married) your mom stole your dad’s sperm and did an oopsie in a last ditch attempt to lock his commitment. and as you yourself state a little further down, this is a smart thing for a woman to do.

– (if your mom and dad were married) your mom banged a bartender/musician/busboy while she was ovulating and got knocked up. your dad eventually found out and, upon locating his balls, left.

but in the end it doesn’t really matter does it, as you turned out just fine.

Never date a single mother, never have sex with a single mother and, above all else, never marry a single mother – no matter how desperate you are. It’s better to masturbate than to be with a single mother.

If men were to unite and have a sex/marriage strike targetting single mothers, a lot of women would probably wise up. There would be no need for distasteful shaming or costly legal changes because women would dread the sexual/relational black hole they would face if they fell into single motherhood.

It would seem that if a woman in the United States wants to be married, and she wants to marry a man who is not crazy, she has to have pre-marital sex. It would seem that if a man in the United States wants to be married, and he wants to marry a woman who is not crazy, he has to have pre-marital sex. Birth control methods fail. The demise of intact families is a scourge. But abortion is a greater scourge. I do not understand this culture’s blindness about pre-marital sex and pregnancy. I shudder to think how many seemingly decent women I know must have had abortions. I do not understand how some men’s rights activists are anti-marriage. What about the welfare of those fatherless boys?

I will add that my father recently told me about how his economic prospects improved once he married and had children; clients preferred to hire him over women and single men because he was a man with a family to support. As it should be. Would that such a climate returned to business.

Forget what Susan Walsh and the rest of mainstream culture tell you. Be true to what you know is right and don’t have pre-marital sex. There are a lot of traditional decent men out there who will refuse to marry a non-virgin. You don’t want to be one of the girls who falls into that category. By having pre-marital sex, you will reduce your marriage market value considerably. Virgins who are at least reasonably attractive are at the summit of the marriage market pyramid.

Bullshit! By what right does an employer discriminate against people based on marital status? The hell, bitch?!?! You bitches changed the rules of the entire game, and now there is no going back. Even if you weren’t one a vocal or leading feminist (virtually all belonging to a small minority group which I won’t name because even to mention them in the context of something negative invariably results in a barrage of epithets), you benefited and continue to benefit from feminism’s establishment of female gender power over men, the same as English whites in South Africa benefited from apartheid even though they did not establish the system. Go lie in the bed you made.

This happened to me a few years back, I could sense the employer was discriminating against me because I wasn’t tied down to the responsibility of a family. Personal responsibilities are non of an employer’s business, but they know they have that much more control over you when they know this!

The culture’s blindness is easy to understand. With our technology survival is much easier so people no longer need to cooperate and be loyal to each other. Everybody just does whatever pleases them because doing so doesn’t lead to you starving to death like it would have 2000 years ago. All people are hedonistic whores at their core. Prosperity allows them to unleash that side of them with no immediate consequences.

Well put. It’s always seemed to me that many of the most virtuous people are those who have lived for a time at the edge of death or serious poverty. (I’m not saying hardship is a sufficient condition for virtue…) Privilege and prosperity weaken the soul. All sorts throw their hands up about the complacency and moral deterioration of the middle class in the US. But it’s obvious to me: they’ve got enough to eat, a roof over their heads, and pleasant programming on television. Not so during the great depression. And so people gave a shit.

Oh, and his results don’t necessarily bear out in terms of the family structure decisions of those of lower socioeconomic status, but social psychologist John Haidt has published a number of studies showing that in locations around the world, it’s those of lower socioeconomic status who have a stricter and stronger sense of moral purity than their higher SES neighbors. Since they’re closer to starving to death, maybe they need to.

I think Haidt did a good study about judgments of brother-sister incest where differences between between different SES groups are quite significant. In this one he looks at judgments about cleaning the toilet with a flag and eating the family dog: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8229648

WTF? . If people aren’t poor, we’re all going to have incest and “eat the family dog”? What insane BS. And here we see the 100% pure Evil at the core of Calvinism.

Under Calvinism, material wealth is the result of being right w/God (what a convenient teaching for the rich to justify their ill-gotten gains.. but I digress); therefore, being poor means not being right w/God (and we’re all so sinful, and so deserve to be poor.. right?).

How does a thriving middle-class fit into this world-view? It doesn’t, and so the middle-class must be destroyed (which, once again, just happens to be very convenient for those who want to be the few who are rich).

It’s not just technology. It’s also the idiotic notion that third parties have any business interfering in the lives of others. If A promises loyalty to B, then breaks it, and B consequently proceeds to whack A, for revenge, kicks or whatever; that is in no way, shape or form any business of any unrelated C. At least not in any civilized society.

It depends on what defines one’s pleasure. I think everyone has a vice they can’t easily control, even if they never discover it. I think we over regulate vice, however. I think people cover the gamut in terms of what motivates them. I would never have been an early Christian Ascetic Pole Sitter, for instance. But it was a big movement in its day.

I’m talking about truly unintentional pregnancies, which I don’t have reason to believe are on the increase, but certainly do happen nonetheless. I think you’re right, increasing numbers of women do want to have children outside of marriage, and no doubt some lie to their partners to achieve just that, which is despicable. Many women seem to be jettisoning any belief in the superiority of the traditional family structure. Perhaps it just doesn’t “pay” for women or men in our culture anymore. It’s still awful. I feel like every day I wake to find myself in a dystopia movie.

“Does an absent or negative father have any influence on his child’s faith? Yes. Sadly, that influence is almost always negative. A bad father-child relationship can produce long-lasting spiritual damage in the life of the child. That damage will cause multiple negative repercussions in other spheres of that child’s life for years to come.” — from Focus on the Family

It seems as though all of us Bible Thumpers weren’t so crazy after all.

No, not on the whole. Read Steve Sailor’s refutations of Freakonomics.

“The most striking fact about legalized abortion, but also the least discussed, is its pointlessness. Levitt himself notes that following Roe, “Conceptions rose by nearly 30 percent, but births actually fell by 6 percent …” So for every six fetuses aborted in the 1970s, five would never have been conceived except for Roe! This ratio makes a sick joke out of Levitt’s assumption that legalization made a significant difference in how “wanted” children were. Indeed, perhaps the increase in the number of women who got pregnant figuring they would get an abortion but then were too drunk or drugged or distracted to get to the clinic has meant that the “wantedness” of surviving babies has declined.”

And I also read a book called The Consequences of Sex(?) that suggested one of the reasons that the number of abortions (or, dysgenic infanticide) is so high, is because women try to trap men and then kill their own kid if the plan fails. These people have no respect for men and certainly none for their own unborn children. I might not have remembered the title of the book correctly, but the claim in the book intuitively made at least as much sense as women being too drunk to turn up for their clinic appointment, then not booking another one.

I have no sympathy for anyone who either gets rid of their own offspring, or creates children that they don’t want. In fact I’d get rid of them and the ‘right wing’ apologists for it. And this isn’t only on ethical grounds, or on the grounds of our declining white birthrates, but because the liberals promoted it for a reason and anyone supporting it is useful to the liberals, just like people supporting multiculturalism and so on.

As for marriage, stable relationships don’t require marriage, and as for birth control, some men on this blog don’t seem to realise that anyone having sex consents to risk. Even on the remote offchance she does prick the bloody condoms, the presence of the condom must stop most of the ejaculate going through. Some people on here just don’t want to take responsibility, and shouldn’t pretend they were trapped.

If game has the potential to do good, then people abusing it can make it potentially harmful.

‘The demise of intact families is a scourge. But abortion is a greater scourge.’

not in my book. abortion, the more quietly undertaken the better, allows theory (chastity) and practice to be reconciled. hypocrisy, i know. a pretty lie even. but the alternative _is_ worse.

the ideal that prevailed back in the day was minimal bastardy. so you had shotgun weddings and strict sexual norms esp. for women. the anti-abortion sentiment has it backwards–it’s bastardy that was to be avoided, the life of the fetus was irrelevant. trust me- back in the 60’s, it was all about punishing sluts. the best interests of the child were the last thing on anyone’s mind.

in christian communities some girls feel-‘well, i may have gotten pregnant, but at least i didn’t take the easy out and kill my baby’. no honey, having the child was way worse than any act of fornication.

if one of my girls turned up pregnant, they would be frogmarched to the nearest clinic pronto. in spite of all the talk about ‘choice’. yeah, right. not on my watch.

Unfortunately, its inconsistent iron and when you consider that some societies consistently punish female sexual irresponsibility, Carolyn is being soft. After all both of the possible consequences, abortion and single motherhood, can only have happened because of bad mate selection.

If abortion is a solution then why “the more quietly undertaken the better”? Why not be vocal about it? if abortion is legal, then why not shame abortionettes by putting their names in the newspaper? That way men can use the abortion as an indicator of a low kind of woman to avoid sticking with. And what about the child’s father’s right to know?

And don’t pro-life men have the right to know whether he’s marrying a baby killer in the future? Just a thought.

in ancient Persia the abortionette, the impregnator ad the midwife or doctor were all put to death. Even if we don’t use the death penalty, I think that would be a very good framework for abortion law today, because the strong deterrent promotes good behaviour all round. People who fail to either abstain or have sex responsibly, with both partners using protection to prevent consequences to themselves and one another, should be rewarded.

And look at how people who say these truths are handled. Anne Coulter shares this message and she has to go on talk shows and be shouted down 5-1 by a group of harpies. It’s always, “are you telling me that I am wrong for having my precious little snookums out of marriage? how dare you judge me???” You can’t ever attack single moms, because their burden is just so heavy, and their love is just too pure.

The white, upper-middle-class single mom is highly likely to be of the “marry beta, have kids, get divorced because the passion is gone” type, as opposed to other ways in which women might end up as single mothers. These are immune to whatever vestigial shame our society may still attach to out-of-wedlock mothers. They don’t see themselves, and are not really seen by most observers, as being on the same level. This is why most white people don’t think this affects them.

1. A mom with out-of-wedlock children, who could care less about the father because she’s financially raping the taxpayers?
2. A divorced mom financially raping her children’s father?
3. A mom with out-of-wedlock children, who is cohabitating with the father?

The first two are definitely destroying America, while the last is just a reflection of how irrelevant and asinine legal marriage is today.

Key point right there. That we are subsidizing our own decline is almost humorous.

I will say this, however: while there are a lot of shitty divorced women out there, there are some that didn’t want the divorce and wanted their marriages and families to work. Maybe not a majority, I don’t know. But there are still women who get left by immature and irresponsible husbands. Women are sometimes the victims of our no-fault divorce system.

No, I agree. I think the stat is somewhere near 70%, and I would argue that in many of the cases where the man files, the woman was really the driving force behind the divorce. That was my case. I filed, but she quit on the marriage months before. So the real percentage could be higher.

However, some of the women who file do so for justifiable reasons. And some file, when in actuality its the man that quit on the marriage. But assuming all those factors are a wash and using the 70% metric, that’s still 30% of women who didn’t want the divorce. That’s a lot of people.

In the case of single moms, I’d say almost 95% of them fit the irresponsible, foolish, and self-centered stereotype this post is describing. I’d date a divorced woman with both eyes open, but I don’t think i’d even mess with a single mom.

The fact is nobody knows the personal history involved when a single woman winds up alone. It could be abusive violence, mental illness, drugs, military death, cheating spouse etc.. of the boyfriend/father that lead to the situation

Then shaming might teach females to choose more with the brain and less with their hamster. Cheating and/or beating boyfriends are more exciting to the hamster, but not good for the offspring. So shaming would hopefully force more women to spread their legs for guys who would make better fathers, rather than cheaters and beaters.

Also, “domestic violence” laws need to be eased up. As someone working in the field of family law, I can see quite clearly that women are not sweet angels who are beat up on by evil monster demonic men. The women choose beaters first of all, second they often rescind the restraining orders after getting them, and third, they often instigate the fights, but the man is the bad guy because he wins the fight. This is similar to blaming Whites for “genociding” the Indians, et cetera. Everybody commits genocide, but we single out the winner as the most blameworthy just because he won? Similarly, when we accept African refugees who “would have been killed” does this mean that this particular set of refugeees are sweet innocents who would not have killed their enemies had they won the confrontation? Or does it just mean that they LOST whatever conflict they were in? We need to stop singling out winners as “especially blameworthy” just because they won, and we shouldn’t imagine that the losers are angels just because they lost.

The situation of a single mother with an only daughter is one of the few times when one may achieve — with reasonable expectation of safety — the superb pleasure of fucking both mother and daughter at once.

If they are both, well, *amorous* types — there are few situations more satisfying to the lecher.

Casanova, in his magnificent memoirs, takes special delight in this glutinous triangle.

It’s the only “threesome” that escapes the deadly banality of all other “threesomes.”

“A moment later the door opened, and Leonilda laughed heartily to see her mother in my arms, and threw herself upon us, covering us with kisses. The duke came in a little later, and we supped together very merrily. He thought me the happiest of men when I told him I was going to pass the night honourably with my wife and daughter…but here I must draw a veil over the most voluptuous night I have ever spent. If I told all I should wound chaste ears…all the phrases of the poet could not do justice to the delirium of pleasure, the ecstasy, and the license which passed during that night…We were scarcely dressed when the duke arrived. Leonilda gave him a vivid description of our nocturnal labours…”

Here’s Casanova’s entirely civilized remark on what we might call the “morality” of the situation:

“As we were going away the duke made several observations on what moral philosophers call prejudices. There is no philosopher who would maintain…that the union of a father and daughter is horrible naturally, for it is entirely a social prejudice…”

If you want to fuck a mother and her daughter, in the same place, at the same time, and be gratified by what you already knew, namely, that a young girl’s body is the supreme creaminess there is, and, further, to be edified by what you scarcely knew, namely, that an aging beauty has a certain wicked smoothness to the skin of her ass in full lordosis that is depravity itself, and therefore provides an incitement to fucking that is indistinguishable from the fiercest rage, then you need to be fearless, and curious, and hungry for everything that makes life such an insane festival for the brave.

The other thing I was wondering is whether many single moms are cases where the baby daddy would have married them but didn’t because she can get welfare as a single mom. If so, this would contribute to the single mom statistics going up (not to mention contributing to the aforementioned decay of society).

I consider wh0res to also be among the dregs of women. Considering such awful examples of feminine material for LTR’s (or even marriage!) breathes life into a future of even more flakiness, poor behavior, single mothers and a litany of women who can have their cake and eat it too, all at the expense of men.

Everytime a man bails out some used-up wh0re from her poor decisions by commiting to her, the moral hazard bell rings to alert the next crop of women that they too can ride the carousel and have no worries that a Man will still accept her for “who she is” when the wall approaches at light speed.

Every flake you encounter, every single mother you date, every wh0re you commit to, these are all the results of a life summation of men choosing pu$$y over self-esteem.

To any man willing to sacrifice standards to have an LTR with some slag, know that you are part of the problem.

However, strong social forces can work both up and down the class and race ladder, and it is entirely plausible that a dystopian event horizon, like widespread illegitimacy, that bellies up the lower and middle classes will eventually consume the upper classes as well, either directly by the osmosis of bad habits or indirectly by the levying of trust-destroying and community-fracturing Danegeld.
I do not agree here. From what I have read about matriarchal/promiscuous societies, there has always been (maybe except some African tribes) patriarchal upper class/elite – ruling those fucked-up proles.

Single motherhood is a racket in several respects. Single mothers get access to a huge menu of social services goodies like section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare, multiple child support payments from numerous fathers and the big winner- Social Security Disability payments. Multiple fathers means more from each father per child than the same number of children from a single father, thus encouraging multiple fathers. In addition, entire families less the father, can and do collect these Social Security payments, which average in the $600-$700 range. This is how all those ghetto folks you see with no visible means of support actually support themselves quite well and often better than you, without working. You can get disability for being an alcoholic, chronic drug abuser, being learning disabled and spending your school time in special education classes, whether you need it or not. That saps any need to actually go to school and break the cycle of poverty. Once you know how to game the social welfare system, you open yourself up to a cornucopia of free stuff at public expense. The debate on single motherhood never addresses this stuff and all the arguments are based on the noble and long suffering single mothers of our urban folklore, not the feral trash it actually is in most cases. Single motherhood is the cornerstone of big government, that is why it’s encouraged.

I enjoy the blog immensely as it has guided some of my more academic research, most recently evolutionary psychology for instance.

Perhaps this was asked above (but there have been a few inane posts
in the comments so I didnt read them) but how do you reconcile your post above and posts like it with your clear approval of multiple relationships and your apparent distrust of permanent LTR’s and marriage? I am totally with you on this all by the way, but a reconciliation of these two ideals that you holding are not possible in the current social monogamy that we… “enjoy.”

I wholeheartedly believe in MLTR’s by the way… and polygamy… and men taking care of their offspring but I am just curious as to your answer.

Game is a numbers game. You have to do lots of women to get the lays. A big part of it is knowing your enemy. Those who you shouldn’t add to your notch list, even if they are really easy. This article does us a valuable service in detailing how fucked up single moms and their kids are, and helps us avoid them.

Plus, your 17 yo girl could become a single mom and entrap you with child support payments. You have to be aware of this stuff when doing her.

The upper middle class white women and career professional types will be joining the ranks of the lessers through divorce and through the desperate measure of the 30 to 35 year old with no one wanting to marry her old ass just getting knocked up.

Btw the best shaming of women away from getting knocked up out of wedlock is to make it so she gets nothing for the child including child support if she wasn’t married to the guy. Turn the child from a meal ticket into her bastard and burden and the birth rate to single women drops to nothing.

I think it is a fine line of who is to blame for the single mom epidemic.

Some here want to insist that women MUST be accountable for their own choices. That’s how the world MUST work. Own your shit, or fail and die. I think that’s good stuff. I want strong accountability for both genders.

Here’s the thing that all the commenters seem to be missing- its the chicken or the egg issue.

Many single moms are single moms because some fucking weasel-boy lied their asses off and then left them in a lurch, or wussed out when things got too hard. The system punishes beta-males the harshest, when many of them are just well-intentioned fools who are trying to “do the right thing”. The feminist movement has transformed Patriarchs into chumps who have no power, no authority, and get eaten for lunch in divorce court.

Fact is, though, that Patriarchy is GOOD, and in my opinion, the height of Alpha-male status, in traditional non-feminist settings. Being a weasel who goes around humping any woman he can, dragging his nuts through a sewer, and then ducking out the back door before anyone ever holds him accountable is NOT a fucking Alpha.

Remember the accountability I mentioned?

If you want to hold the single moms accountable, then you must surely expect for men to hold themselves accountable too, and much of the single-mom epidemic is due to men relinquishing their power and their honor, and men failing to raise up their boys into excellent men.

We could blame the feminists for all this mess.

But as a man, I always check myself first… and I cannot accept that the women are solely to blame for my fate, or in charge of my fate. Women took over and perpetuated this heinous crime of feminism because our recent ancestors allowed it, both through being pussies, and through being fearful failures and lacking fortitude. Men relinquished their position over the last 100 years with poor-ass leadership, and women who were disgusted with that poor-ass leadership had no choice but to usurp the throne. Plus they are greedy power-hungry irrational bitches who have to be actively managed.

If they are not, we get feminism.

If men had been doing their jobs, feminism would never have happened, and it would be cool for men to be good fathers and providers, instead of calling them chumps for it, because the men would be respected, and they would wear the pants.

Just as single women need to be shamed, and exist because the social cost for being a single mom is no longer harsh, but championed…

Baby-daddies need to have a similar social cost for being such fucking weasels and not raising their children well. Unfortunately, we who have taken the red-pill often high-five single dads (including myself) for divorcing that bitch and not letting her disrespect us, no matter the financial cost, or family cost.

So, chicken or the egg- is feminim to blame…. or is feminism itself the fault of our forefathers?

I don’t direct blame towards men to be a kiss-ass feminist, but I do so because to me, being a man means that the buck stops here. I don’t flail about, pointing my finger at everyone else to fix blame. That’s what the fucking feminists do.

MEN handle their fucking business. If a man is not fathering his children to the best of his ability, he is not handling his business. You don’t fucking bail on your own children and then go puffing your chest out acting like you have a big swingin dick. That’s no man at all.

If you are man enough to fuck some girls, but not man enough to own your shit if you get children from the girls you fucked, then you are a weasel, and should look in the mirror before you blame the single moms for the rotten kids and social decline.

side note to the OP- many women do simply need to stop being dumbass clueless whores and make better choices. Speaking up and telling them so is the place to start.

I would also posit that many single mothers are not capable of selecting for good fathers for their offspring. Single motherhood may happen consciously, but it happens selfishly; it’s not about how good a father the man will be for the child, it’s about gaining status and welfare benefits for the mother. Children are an afterthought, and it’s usually up to anonymous taxpayers to fund the child’s upbringing while grandmothers and social workers fill-in for the traditional parental roles.

@evilalpha – Disagree. If there are two people having sex, then there are two people who must be responsible for the decision, and for the consequences.

It sounds like you want to leave your fate up to the woman, and whether or not she is going to screw up and get pregnant. I think a man is best served to take the lead on how that will happen, not just hope she gets it right.

MEN must take the lead, if they are to be in control of their destiny.

I did so by getting a vasectomy. Solved. I’m in charge.

If men would just take the lead in their own lives, they wouldn’t have to sit around blaming women for their problems, because they wouldn’t have any. Make women fall in line, and they will.

Then remove the incentives to single motherhood. The problem would solve itself and people would also behave more morally because not doing so would have negative consequences. People don’t generally operate in the abstract.

You don’t know how women, incentives and disincentives work. Women fall in line when the price of hypergamy is highest. When you and feminists dream that a man should split the cost of sex with a woman, you are effectively cutting the price of her hyperpgamy in half.

When a man is not forced by the state or ideology to help a woman raise offspring, she will choose a man differently and act differently to keep that man.

The sad fact is that a father who loves his children loses key leverage with their mother, in today’s society. Would you say for a father to love his sons makes him a beta?

Since the first time I held my children, I determined for myself to see to their care and instruction. It’s not the state (I hate the fucking state) and it’s not ideology… more like instinct. It is simply what I want, and how I am, and what I decided, and I cannot be ashamed for being true to myself and following through with a major (and costly) decision.

If you like to call me a feminist with a mangina, for this, then I can live with that. I’m betting you don’t have children.

I will not engage you further, evilalpha. I imagine we would have a lot of common ground, and you might even have something of value I could learn, but your tactics of AMOGing me with insults is not something I will allow.

Perhaps in the future you will become more effective with your communication techniques. Mutual understanding will serve us far better than bickering and infighting. Show enough leadership to accomplish that, and you’ll earn enough respect from me to be willing to shake your hand, and listen. Instructing men with truths they really need will probably suit you better than just kicking everyone in the balls.

What you refuse to see is that I label you a mangina and a feminist, not because I feel the need to mount/1 up you, but to make you aware of the company you keep with that horrible sentiment of yours. But alas it has done nothing to make you stop and contemplate your position more.

I would only hope that you being a good father would make women want to throw pussy your way (definition of alpha is sexual access,) but unfortunately in today’s climate that is not the case. The bad boy sperm donator is more sought after than you are as the state and feminism has replaced your fatherly love.

My communication style is not the problem. Your deafness is the problem. And as for you thinking we having common ground….we don’t. You and I disagree on one of the most fundamental tenants of civilization.

How did the sexual revolution come about if men were in charge? Men lead, women follow. That seems to be the general consensus around here. Either the feminists are right and no gender is inherently dominant, or we are right and men decided to abdicate their role and duty in favor of easy, abundant pussy.

While I agree that women are the gate keepers of sex and should be held accountable for who they sleep with, wouldn’t it also be true that men choose the women they commit to so men pretty much get the women they deserve, so therefore should be held accountable for their wives divorcing/leaving them?

It may sound silly, but if the reasoning is flawed, I’d like to know. I’ve noticed that women are often held accountable for that as well. Women should certainly bear some onus of responsibility in such instances, but I think it’s unreasonable to (seemingly) vindicate men from all responsibility in both instances.

Women have more options to choose than men do in most cases. The least experienced men pay the highest price in the sexual market place. Hence, most men get few choices and grab what they can, trainwreck or not. The men who would likely make the best fathers are the least likely to breed and most likely to divorce and get hosed. Alpha males have always had pussy and plenty of betas have raised their kids unknowingly. Its not alphas who get screwed in the current arrangement; its the beta males who would have started a family. Essentially what we have done is communitized the expense of raising children to all men, whether or not they made them or not. That is why single mothers need to be limited. They have become a collective drain on society and their children are not the same quality as children raised in a traditional nuclear family. Men who go the traditional route are generally stepped on in this society. Men are responding to the incentives they have been given. Why is that so hard for people to grasp?

Yes! You get the symmetry. Brilliant thing for a woman to say out loud.

Women gatekeep sex and men gatekeep commitment. Instinctively, feminists know this and spend furious amounts of resources combating “slut shaming” and telling women they shouldn’t reveal their sex partner number to a prospective husband.

The problem with men is that we don’t stick to our guns about settling down with whores. Closet whores, and reformed whores get a slap on the wrist these days. I’ve had more virgins than the prince William. WTF?

Imagine there was a movement called “Childism” that aimed to give children the same rights as adults, and most adults naively went along with it. Who would you blame when such a movement predictably fucked everything up? Adults, obviously.

But you can’t at the same time blame them for not pretending as if nothing has changed. To continue along with my analogy, let’s say after the rise of childism adults stopped providing for their children as they had traditionally done. You can’t blame them individually for adapting to their new social landscape, even if they are collectively responsible for it.

I’m sorry, but there are too many ways to prevent pregnancy at this point for women to be getting knocked up in droves by men who were never there to begin with. Most of these men didn’t just bust out and leave while the woman was pregnant or after the child was born , they were always gone.

Women are the ones who should assume all responsibility in the case of pregnancy. They bear 100% of the risk if they don’t plan well. They’re aware they are the ones who have to go through carrying that baby to term, they are the ones that absolutely HAVE to spend sleepless nights caring for the baby, barring adoption, and they are the ones who absolutely have to raise it. Whether the man sticks around or not is the man’s choice and it is not a right. If the man doesn’t stick around it’s not his problem, it’s HER problem.

Knowing that so much risk is involved in pregnancy, why are women still so caviler about it? Again, there are man, many methods of contraception to prevent unwanted and unplanned births, but still this problem persists since single motherhood is so celebrated and “empowering” now. This one reason why shaming should be employed to combat these delusions.

I see where youre coming from… but you seem to be counting on people to do the right thing. With the way human nature is, holding people accountable is not going to change anything. From a EP perspective, men are always going to sleep around and have kids with different women if they CAN. Likewise, women are going to chase after alphas and make bastard spawn with them if they CAN.

I believe the answer to their destructive behavior is not expecting them to do the right thing because they were shamed or because its morally right. They wont. Instead we just need to restore the consequences that make it too difficult to do the nonsense they do. If a women insists on being a single mother it should be on her own dime. Like someone before said, make her bastard spawn a burden and not a meal ticket like its always been in nature, and not too long ago at that.

On the men who ditch their children, well just revert the free goodies single mothers get so they have to sustain their children with their own finances, and women may just start to choose who they sleep with better, or at the very least use better protection. Not to mention, if a man abandons his child and it starves or dies because the mother cant sustain it on her own dime, thats just natural selection at its finest. Not my problem and never will be.

‘Not to mention, if a man abandons his child and it starves or dies because the mother cant sustain it on her own dime, thats just natural selection at its finest. Not my problem and never will be.’

don’t kid yourself. they’ll be provided for one way or another. not many of us could tolerate the sight of kids dying of exposure on the street. the best that can be done is make the mom’s such a sparse existence that no woman would embrace it if she had a choice..

Actually children dying in the past was not as uncommon as you think. If the mother didnt have family and friends to help thats exactly what happened. But thats my whole point. If you want to support bastard spawn of your own free will thats good for you. I shouldnt be forced with my taxes to support free loaders. Not my problem never will be.

that was way back in the day and reflected the brutal social realities of the time. even then, in the christian west it was softened even if not very effectively. there were charities and alms that helped in a haphazard way i suppose. oh yes, and who could forget the ‘orphanages’ to which rousseau for one consigned his bastards. they were death traps but you could kid yourself you weren’t as good as killing them.

but i digress…there are worse things than supporting freeloaders. for one thing you may want to cut back on the number of desperadoes who may cause you bodily harm for your stuff. look at s. america today.

Thats not the subject at hand. The “desperadoes” will be dealt with when the time comes. That is no reason to ignore the problems that can be easily fixed here at home.

I dont follow when you say brutal social reality? That is the way it should be. I dont see what is brutal about having to support your own child or they perish.There is limited resources and people should only be allowed to have as many children as they can support. Those charities and all that is good. They help of their own free will. The problem here is when me and many others dont want to help yet we are forced too. If my taxes could be lowered so more of my money could go toward my own children that would be mighty nice.

No wonder most of these children who grew up in single parent homes grow up to be criminals. They grew up all their life seeing their mother get assistance for her irresponsible choices from tax paying suckers, and they do everything in their power to make sure they dont become that sucker.

I’m 50. When I was a young man, I thought abortion was a necessary evil. Now I don’t think I would ever make the choice to force a child to abort their own child. One of the most important reasons I married my wife was because she is opposed to abortion, at least for herself. I simply couldn’t love a woman who would kill my offspring. As a young man, I would have probably married the girl if I had gotten one pregnant. I would still seek this solution, as I don’t consider an early marriage a bad thing. Risky perhaps, but generally a maturing experience, and if people try, it can be made to work and if it works, a successful marriage is always a good thing.

That’s funny, because when I was a teenager/20 something I was staunchly anti abortion, and now that I’m in my 30s I’m totally pro abortion, to the point where I think child support should be limited to half the cost of an abortion – you want a kid and I don’t, too bad, you either get the abortion or you raise it on your own, I shouldn’t get stuck with 18 years of bills because a condom ripped.

Of course, it probably has something to do with me being a total christfag as a kid and believing unborn babies were people with rights, and now a days I’m a nihilistic atheist and the only rights I care about are my own.

‘I dont follow when you say brutal social reality? That is the way it should be. I dont see what is brutal about having to support your own child or they perish’

is it all so simple? you change one aspect of a society-here a big component of the social safety net- and other aspects of that society will change, and not only or even primariy in positive ways.

for instance, if you knew there was no backup if you lost your job, would you have as many children as you could afford? even any? after all, it would be irresponsible to subject those potential children to your lack of funds or even death if it were to happen.

i don’t want to get into a whole argument about the safety net. thinking it imperfect as i do isn’t the same as gutting it. we can all use some slack built into the system. if there weren’t, we might be like the chinese running over 2 year olds so they won’t be charged for the medical costs of an injured kid, iow a society no decent person could stand to live in.

I was largely brought up in adolescence without a father, and I was a delinquent.

When, as I occasionally do, I meet a woman who has a bastard child, some sixth-sense tells me to avoid her, and it is not just because her child can be nothing to me – and I have found that single mums have difficulty controlling their male offspring – it is because the act of having a child minus a father, whether through divorce or otherwise, tells me that this woman is either selfish, or unable to hold down a relationship or both. She is thus no more, no matter how cute than pump-and-dumo material.

It is just about within living memory that the bastard offspring of an unmarried woman would have been seen as not marraige material. How we have fallen.

i used to work on the federal level with state social svces agencies trying to wean single tanf (then afdc) recipients off some of their grant by facilitating their employment. you saw the gamut of types interviewing these women. they ranged from the heroic to the most lazily entitled–and the state was only working with the more salvageable cases, the low-hanging fruit iow.

the experience convinced me that abortion should not be ‘rare’ as clinton wanted but rather encouraged, even prescribed, although that won’t pass muster politically. if i ruled the country, a pregnant woman applying for tanf would be strongly advised to abort, since it kills whatever upward mobility they might potentially have, as little as that may be for some. likewise mothers who apply for tanf would, as a term of receiving it, be given a long-term norvac type contraceptive, the reason (for the recipient’s consumption) explicitly being that the last thing she needs trying to get her life together is an unplanned pregnancy.

the pro-life movement has been most obstructionist here. their sentimentality, which i once shared, is getting in the way of social improvement. do we really need more people, especially the type tending to the most dysgenic-inducing set of motivations? you know, i can relate to a sweet young thing that just wants a baby to love, but society just can’t afford to indulge this wish.

A society with few children has few new workers. This means a declining economy, declining tax revenue and a weaker society. Eventually, we’ll have so many childless old people and not enough state money to look after them. This will result in mandatory euthanasia, probably initially starting at age 90 and dropping thereafter.

The problem is not that there are too many of the “wrong” of children. The real problem is that there are not enough of the “right” children.

Middle and upper class women today spend a long time in college and then establishing themselves in a career. They then decide to get married in their thirties when they’re past their sexual marketplace prime. The hot Alpha males that they love are not interested in committing to these women and the hypergamous female instinct compels these women to regard the vast majority of men as being unworthy of their affections. Thus, a lot of the “right” type of women end up not mating and not having any children [or maybe one at most], even though that is not what they intended.

that _is_ a dilemma. but what we’re talking about here is minimizing the number of single moms esp. those never married and whose kids are more likely to be damaged. more children from intact solid families is definitely more desirable for the reason you cite.

how to encourage that with in the face of wage stagnation and growing job insecurity? i don’t have a fucking clue. maybe ows has some ideas. that’s more the problem than the availability of abortion on demand.

the supreme court handed down roe v wade decision when i was in my early 20’s. i remember shotgun marriages among my college classmates and furtive illegal abortions there and in high school, as well as the shame of unwed motherhood including in my extended family (plenty of shame alright). one case where my cousin married the dad (17 &18 years old) who used her as a punching bag and another (the smart one) who gave her son up for adoption.

plenty of problems in that mid to late sixties set-up let me tell you. still, better than now if abortion were permitted.

Okay, I don’t get shaming men who date single moms. You say they’re validating the single mother “lifestyle,” but if he ends up in a long term relationship with that single mom, he’s providing her kid(s) with the father figure they’re missing. How is that bad?

[Heartiste: Desperate men who settle for single moms are encouraging those kinds of women to continue vacuuming the seed of caddish alpha males in their fertile primes, who will leave them with bastard spawn. The ol’ “beta chump card” is an effective, if loveless, alternative for single moms who would otherwise be cast to the icy wastelands with their fatherless issue.]

Also, what about widowed women? Or women who left because their husband/boyfriend was abusing the kids? Do they deserve to be “shamed” too?

[Widowed mothers are widows, not single moms. Words have meaning. And as for abusive bfs/hubbies… well, maybe women ought to take more care in choosing partners.]

CH, you’re dead wrong. We now know for a fact–thanks to the wisdom of the courts–that the gender of the parent(s) today has no bearing whatsoever on child outcome. The facts in this Australian study–and the thousands of others like it in the western world–must’ve been fabricated. Or perhaps it’s all a repressive, patriarchal plot. Take here, for instance, the ruling of one particular judge (The Honorable Judge Thomas Walker, August 2010) in his ruling for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California:

The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender… The [marriage] exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.

Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents …Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals [p.113]…

It is so ordered [p.136]

Whew! I’m so glad we can now safely ignore the role of fathers in the home. Both genders are, in fact, completely equal. A judge has ordered it so!

There’s an incostincensy between your claims of “At 70+% among black Americans, 50+% among Hispanics, and 30% among whites” and http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf which states “48.2% black 22.4% white 25.4% hispanic” for BOTH genders of single parents.

Didn’t read the study but as per comment from the link you provided stated:

“Classical mistake by the social scientists. They fail to take into account the heridity of personality.

To put it bluntly, the “jerk” fathers – yes, a father that does not try to spend time with his kids is a jerk – may pass down their “jerk” genes to their boys. In the boys, the “jerk” genes express themselves by having them commit petty crimes.

Unfortunately, the social scientist always seem to “forget” the possible genetic origin of personality when doing their studies. Why let the truth come in the way of a “good” article?”

The mother’s probably aren’t all that in the intelligence and personality department either.

Yes exactly, these children are deviant not necessarily because they are raised by a single mother, but because their single mother took it upon herself to curse them with genes from an alcoholic, abusive moron. Anyway, even If the father had stuck around he would of just sat on his ass doing his usual bullshit, not raising his children to be productive citizens.

My last two years of teaching before I retired was in an alternative school. This was for kids who had been kicked out of regular schools. One 9th grade girl was pregnant for both years. She was white. She brought her first kid to school near the end of the first year. All the female teachers and students made a big fawning over her and the baby. I am convinced that this told her that having a baby was a good deal and led to her second baby. If we don’t shame them, we should at least not glorify them.

I agree, our birthrate is too low to discourage white reproduction. Its not the problem that people are having children, or that the state gives them money to do it. the problems that policies of child support are encouraging women to have children that will grow up in less than ideal family environments, without a male father or grandfather figure in the house.

So, then is it a party foul to bang married women with children? I’m curious to know where the men of this forum will draw the line.

It seems banging married MILFs with kids may be a Charismatic No Fly-zone, since it could lead to creating a single mommy if beta-dad finds out and decides to hit the bricks. Of course, with open marriages and all sorts of shenanigans happening these days, YMMV–you may revitalize a relationship by giving some cuck-fetishist some wank material. (What’s the evolutionary adaptation of that?? better genetic quality kids? Nature is sometimes a strange, strange world.)

If you’re talking about cuckold fetishists, I read that it’s about competitiveness. They are excited to send their little soldiers to compete with the alpha male’s seed.

Nothing heroic in that if you ask me. The fear of raising another man’s child should outweigh the excitement of sperm competition in a normally constituted man.

On the other hand, I see advantages in fucking another man’s wife. You get to pass on your genes and pass the bill to the other chump. That’s why many players have this married woman’s fetish (including me I’m afraid). I’m not sure we are normally constituted though, because the fear of being caught and possibly killed should normally outweigh the excitement.

As per your theory on Twitter that black women prefer unPC white men: I certainly think that’s true. White men skilled in game are almost invariably political incorrect, and so this will obviously up their attraction factor. Political incorrectness in its truest form (not the quasi-unPC rambling of many Republicans) is, in this society, a form of rebellion. We all know how attractive women find rulebreakers.

White men find it particularly difficult for obvious reasons to assert inconvenient truths, so I as a black person certainly find it respectable (and attractive) when they do. However, I was raised by a very politically incorrect father, so I don’t know how much credence my feelings give to your theory.

Twenty years ago when I was but a lad, I observed that in the very rare occurrences that White men were with Black girls, the men were either sensitive weenies who were “in touch with themselves” or very low-class scum.

Perhaps that’s beginning to change as more white unPC Real Men [example: John Rocker] cross the line.

It is true that black women are certainly the least desirable. But that doesn’t necessarily correlate with facial attractiveness.

I don’t think black women are inherently unattractive. Making blanket statements like that are often divisive since you’re referring to a group that looks so morphological different to white people; which i reckon is often the point of comparison. I’m black and I’m well aware that there are men who aren’t into me due to my race, but people encounter individuals and not groups so there are very many men who are. Doesn’t make sense to be bothered about it.

Its not facial features, its their gross weight problem. There would be many more attractive black women if more of them had normal figures. That’s fully within womens’ control. Where I work, the black women are 85% way overweight – 250 pounds and more.

At 70+% among black Americans, 50+% among Hispanics, and 30% among whites

Mitt Romney used similar numbers in his book No Apology and came to the same general conclusion that single mothers in vast numbers are a scourge to society. It’s funny how some Christians hate Romney on a personal level and fail to see he’s a champion for their cause. A horde of jealous petty status-seeking pricks the religious right has become, but the humble will inherit the earth. Intelligence and the ability to accept reality takes a certain humility I think.

You advocate pump and dump relationships and then sneer at single mothers? How does that make sense?

It’s a relief that the kind of people who lap your bullshit up will never have the capacity to breed to begin with… and funny that you lack the testicular fortitude to pass comments like this one onto your board.

As heartiste explained countless times, he recognizes and writes about the fall of western civilization while openly admitting he contributes to it happily because it benefits him personally since he’s a hedonist who puts his pleasure above everything else. Personally, if I ruled the world I’d have him executed (via sandwiching between fat chicks) but I very much respect his honesty.

“funny that you lack the testicular fortitude to pass comments like this one onto your board”

Fail.

We are accustomed to moralist indignatii on this blog. And your remark is stupid. What’s beneficial to me is not necessarily beneficial to society. We’re all aware of that, but we are selfish bastards. No one claims to be a parangon of moral rectitude.

Now get your self-righteousness back into the toilet where you came from.

You dont get it. He advocates pump and dumping to advance the decline of society and show people the error of their ways so we can start anew and not make the same mistake again. This society is too far gone for us to reverse the damage done. Even if most men wanted to be loving fathers who commit to one woman, women as a whole still want to chase alpha cock, and will do so as long as they have the power to do so with the free social goodies they get and social support from society to sleep around. Good day.

I don’t think there are two types of men, players and betas. I believe every man would behave like a cad if he had a chance … It’s not that “betas” are morally superior, they just have less options.

Your problem is that you believe ALL women are sluts who want to sleep with alphas but on the other hand you “beta” men are decent and morally superior to us while the truth is that you just have less options. I don’t trust anyone and especially not “betas” because they are usually liars (talking what society expects from them, e.g. that they don’t care about their girlfriend’s age, looks or past experience with men) with no self confidence.

Maya, you’re playing into the meme that CH and Whiskey are always plugging – that it’s in the nature of women to hate all beta males.

It’s true that most betas would sleep around if they had more options, just as it’s true that alphas get what they want from women because most women easily put out for alphas. But, just like not all women are like that [NAWALT], not all men are like that either [NAMALT]. Some guys actually do have morals and won’t compromise.

Unlike a lot of betas, I don’t sugar-coat things. I would never lie to anyone about what I want if they ask me – I will never marry a woman over thirty and will never marry a non-virgin. That’s not to say that there are no beautiful women over 30, or that there are no non-virgin single women who are wonderful people; they’re just not marriage material for me. If maintaining high standards means that I’ll end up alone, it’s fine with me. Better to be alone than to be with the wrong partner.

Correct…but since women are the gate keepers of sex by eliminating the incentive to chase alpha cock, both alphas and the women who chase them are held on a leash in one stroke. There has always been a few of them, but the consequences for such actions always kept it at a few. I’m not biased but men can only go through a woman a night because women allow them too=.

I’m fine with women sleeping with the men they want and being single mothers on their own dime. I simply dont agree that tax payers should have to fund that lifestyle though as it just promotes more of it. Not my child… not my problem. Go after the alphas and make them pay for their own child. Mother doesnt know where father is because he ran? Once again, not my problem.

“The paper suggests a number of possible explanations for the absent father effect. It may be that other unrelated men in the home, be they stepfathers or boyfriends, give off pheromones that set off the girls’ biological clocks.”

Interesting. Personally, I chock it up to role-taking and the possibility that being forced to fend for yourself inherently grows you up, for better or worse. If the study does nothing else, it proves the case that biology responds to the mind, and not just the other way around.

Synthesize it with this one on the impact that father absence has on men:

Come to think of it, an evolutionary explanation of the Time article comes to mind fairly immediately. Absent a protective father, the sooner a woman attracts a surrogate male the better, from an survival perspective.

“It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: —
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.”

Geld — gold — that you pay to Danes so they won’t sack your town. This time, anyway. Of course, sometimes the Danes would take the geld and _then_ sack the town, because obviously you’re going to hold some back, right? Plus there’s stuff other than gold that the Danes want, and if they have to buy it that means giving some of the gold back.

There’s an old saying (which may come from a Rudyard Kipling poem, but since nobody reads him anymore because he thought white people were awesome, just call it an old saying): “If you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.” In other words, paying someone to leave you alone means they come back over and over in order to get paid to leave you alone. But if you kick their ass, they’ll leave you alone for free.

Single motherhood wouldn’t be much of a problem if women went after intelligent law abiding men, but as we know, women cant help themselves from lusting after all manner of scum. Scum makes scum. I disagree that its single motherhood that causes problems. It plays a part but I think the bigger part is women have children with thug idiots. Even if the father had stuck around the kid would of grown up to be a bumbling moron who huffs paint under the overpass anyway, its in the genes folks.

For this reason, I agree that we need to do away with single motherhood. If women have the power to be single mothers they always use it to hunt after unproductive men. Or at the very least, if women insist they should have the right to go after the men they want and be single mothers, it should be on their own dime. My taxes shouldn’t be going toward single mothers.

True story. Just happened last week. I was in a Seattle bar having a conversation with an attractive petite woman. 15 minutes into the conversation I asked her if she had children, she answered back that she had two but was not married. I told her that I was single with no children and only felt comfortable dating women with those qualities. I thanked her for the conversation and excused myself. Ten minutes later the doormen/bouncers of the club asked me to leave because I was harassing a female patron (the woman I politely excused myself from). God only knows what she told them- I just left as there were not any good prospects in the bar anyways- I was out to meet women for dating – and found a bar with a better selection.

Not only should one not date single mothers- but be sure to have a witness available for ANY exchanges you might have with one. They are a particularly venomous lot.

Gentleman, avoid single mothers like the plauge. “Oh, it’s alright, I’m just pumping and dumping”, you may say; but remember any poor choice of sexual partner can lead to drama and problems down the line. By shagging single mothers you are increasing the risk of this.

Every time you say no to one of these women you make it clear that you obviously rate yourself. This, in turn, will lead to other, better, women rating you.

Heartiste: have you seen this? It’s videos of an “international eye tracking study to measure how men and women look at the photo of a sexy and provocative young woman.” Perhaps to no-one’s surprise, men spend loads of time looking at tits, and women at the engagement ring.

I’m disappointed. First you say marriage is bad – it’s for beta chumps.
Yet, now you say single mothers are the reason why “we are heading for a future of grown-up bastard spawn bringing all their neuroses and dysfunction to bear on the social contract, which is already frayed beyond rescue.”
Well, how exactly then do you “propose” that a woman has someone help her raise her child if all men take your advice and refuse to commit? For arguments sake, say all men become “alpha” in one way or another, would that not result in pregnancies left right and center? With men fathering children all over the place and not taking responsibility for them? I don’t know many women who would be willing to put up with a polygamous relationship for the sake of their child having a father sadly. Couldn’t you then say that game could lead to the very thing you seem to be so afraid of?

Correct me if I’m wrong (and I probably am), but aren’t you contradicting yourself? Genuinely curious to see how the two concepts will work together. An explanation would be appreciated. *No troll-ness intended.*

Well then, you’ve all been meeting the wrong women…
The sweet and feminine ones out there are all getting trampled on by the male preference to party now and settle later. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You get what you create.

Eventually, people decide to marry or live together anyway. Dating got old for me. Much of the anti LTR talk is bluster until you meet a good partner. Good sex, for instance requires common experience with a partner, because its a skill. The problem I see is the fact that so many intelligent people who post here and think obliquely as many here do, may never reproduce or be able to influence young minds out of a lack of children. I think society will be lessened as a result.

Almost all these problems can be solved by getting government out of families. Most of the pathologies we see today including feminism is the result of social engineering.

Fortunately, most of the screwed up divorce laws are the under local State laws. The State which corrects it’s family court system will see an influx of the best and brightest men in the country.

Even the worst of the Federal excesses can be curbed by eliminating their counterpart laws on the State level. For example, you will never get rid of Federal welfare, but you can eliminate it on the State level. If the US govt wants to give hoes money to pump out babies, fine. But the people of Oklahoma don’t have to go along with it.

Remember: If she gets no payoff for running away with the kids to her new boyfriend, she won’t run. For example, if you take the estimated amount of child support needed, and then you say that the percent of that child support given will be directly tied to the percent of time the father gets around his child, you are going to see far far fewer divorces..

“Studies that have expanded the measured variables to include other dysfunctional behaviors find clear links between fatherlessness and sluttiness in teen girls.” Yup, which is why hearing a woman tell me that she grew up without her father is music to my ears …

For starters, the obvious fact that welfare and legally
enforced child support is the fire that keeps MOST
single mothers going.

Murphy Brown (yes, I know she is fictitious but it doesn’t matter)
at least has the resources to pull of single motherhood without
becoming a direct burden on society, and besides the women with
these resources are rare (as are men, but that’s beside the point).

But there is a very dangerous tendency for people to
try to emulate the rich (not just in this respect). This
can end tragically if they start at the wrong end Iwhich
is typical) i.e. at the spending end, not at the productivity end.

You know, 20 plus years ago, British women were really hot. Liz Hurley types were common. When I was a boy, all the women I thought were beautiful were English. Dianna Rigg, Julie Andrews, Julie Christy etc. were elegant, ladylike, and sexy.

Oh spare me your brilliant critique. That kind of argument is exactly why we got to this point, because the social services industrial complex keeps making exactly that claim to obfuscate the fact that single motherhood equals chaos in a society. More single moms equals job security for the social services industry. With this much overlap, correlation probably is causation.

What do you think the overall effect will be on 1000 women in my city once I complete my 1000 sets of hell?

What effect will I have on other men when I attempt to rise from beta to alpha?

Increased female self-esteem

[Heartiste: No. Men who are proficient with game will studiously avoid fucking and dating undesirable chicks. And the hotties will have their self-esteems brought back into line by specific game tactics.]

There is an element of truth in saying that the teaching of game can result in having your student steal a great girl away from you.

But, without enough guys knowing how to act like real men, they’ll just make it illegal for the alphas to date those they want anyway and more women will choose not to exercise. So nobody will get the hottest females while there will be fewer hot females.

Laws could easily be passed making it illegal to have sex with someone under 21 who has been given a gift of any sort or financial support by the older partner. Game would prevent that by increasing the number of men who will have the confidence and frame of mind to say “don’t mess with my target group”.

Do not discount a woman’s vanity when getting pregnant. Beyond the desire for celebrity status as a single mother, beyond the financial benefits of child support and welfare, beyond even the possible love the mother might feel for her child, is the simple, subconscious female vanity that SHE is the one and only woman who will finally tame the cad and, through virtue of her being the special one to carry his progeny, he will give up his wandering ways and settle down with her, the special one, the chalice who carries his precious blood.

This may be the most important driver of the issue – the idea that the power of woman-as-mother can change even the most thuggish bad boy into a loving provider, because her vagina is so special. It’s entirely unconscious, but real. I have seen this (il)logic at work firsthand.

“This campaign of shame should include in its sights those desperate beta and omega males who willingly date and shack up with single moms and by doing so breathe sustaining gusts of validity into a depraved lifestyle that would otherwise fail in a state of nature where men had more choice and exercised more care in their choosing of partners.”

These wonders of deluded masculinity are at their best when they believe every word that comes out of your baby’s momma’s mouth about how abusive and controlling you were and so attempt to usurp your position as father by undermining your relationship with your kids and helping her to collect all the extra scratch she can through the family courts.

Since 99% of single moms are on welfare of some sort, I’ve always felt vaguely cuckolded by them and have no problem looking down on them. Date them? Never have, never will. Automatic instant disqualification.

Its a majority, but I don’t think its 99%. Section 8 housing, food stamps, etc. are low profile today and its not always obvious who collects these benefits. That is intentional so as to remove the stigma of being on public assistance. As I said elsewhere, we’ve passed the burden of fatherhood onto men and society in general.

Although it breaks my heart to acknowledge it, we will probably have state incubators and nurseries for raising children in common in 50 years at the rate we’re headed. This discussion will be rendered moot. Everybody else should have kids. Aldous Huxley understood human nature, especially with the leisure class, which is what much of our society has become. Many of us here easily live better than aristocrats of the 30s, perhaps with only the exception of mansions and servants. So many everyday items we take for granted today, to include year round exotic food was unavailable most of the year back then. Oranges, bananas, etc. were not available year round outside of wealthy areas in major cities. Even wealthy men only had one car, if that on most of the Continent then. Huxley wrote “Brave New World” for you young ones. Huxley was an English aristocrat who lived well from family money. He was married to a bisexual woman and carried on a long term affair with both her and her lover. “Day plus one, equals none.” Prescient book.

I heartily concur; most of the single moms I know showed piss poor judgment and still do. I do know one whose husband was killed in Iraq and it took 2 years to notify her there wasn’t enough of his body left to identify. There are always exceptions to the rule…

Food prices are about the same in Italy and France as here. People don’t overeat to the same extent and the food in Italy, especially, is inherently healthier. People walk much more too. Walking or biking together as a family is common in most of Northern Europe.

[ a poster above, Carolyn, seemed to be gently and sincerely inquiring into something, and doesn’t deserve the snarky zinging ]

now

eek, lots of hate I may garner from this —

but

the inability I see in (some of) these responses to reconcile

marriage = stupid / for beta chumps
single mothers = scourge

and the harsh condemnations really really does harken back to madonna/wh0re archetypes, but more importantly the inability of the human mind to be satisfied with its owner’s lot in life.

don’t worry, I don’t mean M/W in a feminist context. I love you dudes. It’s just a fact somehow of how things are wired:

woman-1 who could wind up pregnant: “Ah the sexy wh0re that is uninhibited, feels her sexuality, wants to express it alot and will gratify my desires–YES I want her; but by the way she’s a horrible thing.”

woman-2 who could wind up pregnant: “Ah the sweet girl who is not quick to sex or is a virgin; she’s soft, feminine, reserved, I always get to make the move to initiate, she swoons over me, is compliant–YES, I feel like such a man. **fast forward 1 year** ok but by the way, I’m horribly bored, where all the wh0re women at?… ”

The majority of guys will criticize both archetypes, or as I see 50% of the time on this blog, femininely *bitch and moan* about both archetypes, and find themselves dissatisfied, once they are in either situation for very long.

You want both sorts of women! It’s cool! It’s *fine*, truly it is. But just acknowledge that having both sorts, means shooting any long-term societal solutions in the foot. Plus there’s no escaping that very often your actions *will* lead to long-term sadness and confusion in said women, sentimental and weak-willed creatures that we are🙂

Maybe there’s a beautiful commonality to men and women: both of you are miserable fvcks desperately trying to claw yourself out of misery. You may think getting more partners will do that. Another person might think getting one sole partner for life will do that. We’re all carrot-drooling donkeys in the end.🙂

There is NO solution to the madness! Embrace it!

NO solution! :dancing banana:

plus, what man *or* woman could possibly respect you as a man ***if you do not speak as bluntly, harshly or coldly in REAL LIFE as you do on the interwebs and this here blog*** truly, if we had a satellite view of everyone who contributes here, how many among you speak this candidly to real live human beings? that is my skepticism of many of the posts here.

typically as a woman and married gal, I find insight to most of the stuff on this blog, and have learned by it. I feel I could stand to learn alot more. And Samuel pointed out something important, I feel: what gets lost sometimes is: Men have to be the leaders, and I’m a fan of pointing out that leadership means taking responsibility over your life. 100%. When you have an abundance of something, and when you’re not fearful, you can afford to be generous. It’s simple, and we’ve all seen it. Not talking about doling out money, here. I mean having generosity as a personal quality, leading by example, having directionality, keeping things moving, creating outcomes in the world, and being firm, assertive, charming, attractive, clever and intelligent enough to encourage women to be better — to be extraordinary in their femininity (challenging nowadays yes, we’ve been churning out McDonalds-ized human beings since the end of WWII, but Men find ways). The men I look up to including my husband do that. It’s really not hard.

bonus: if you’re so driven or your days are so consumed by your own mission or art in life that you barely have time to even *think* about attracting women, those are usually the men who have the most choices. So post on this blog, take a good while, learn from the insights, get it out of your system. And then for (non-existent) godssakes, QUIT ALL POSTING and be solely out there in the world.

“Adolescent boys are more prone to delinquency if they do not have a father figure in their lives, a University of Melbourne study has found, while adolescent girls seem unaffected by the presence or absence of fathers in their lives.”

These boys are their sperm donor’s sons, how much benefit would shitavious really bring to the table as a father figure?

Portion control doesn’t work. Neither does cutting back on eating. All calories are not equal. If you want to be thin and healthy, first read GOOD CALORIES BAD CALORIES by Gary Taubes. The doctors preach high carb; low fat diets. People who do that, according to Doctor Douglass are called diabetics.